opsi public value for city innovation-espoo-23.01 · opsi works with close partnership with the...

o p s i @ o e c d . o r go e . c d / o p s i @ O P S I g o v

@piret.tonurist

REPLACE W ITH TITLE OF THE PRESENTATION

The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation exists since 2013 at the OECD.2016 a team was assembled to build up different work-streams of the Observatory.

OPSI works with close partnership with the European Commission.

UNCOVERING WHAT IS NEXTIdentifying innovative practices at the edge of government

and providing insights into what they mean for government.E.g., OPSI platform of public sector updates, biannual

updates from OECD member countries, Global Innovation Review (February)

1

23

TURNING THE NEW INTO NORMALInvestigating the frameworks, skills, and

methods to unlock creativity and innovation, and helping embed them in the day-to-day

work of public servants.E.g., OPSI skills framework, innovation

lifecycle studies, systems thinking workshops

PROVIDING TRUSTED ADVICE TO FOSTER INNOVATION

Identifying contextual and system-specific barriers to innovation, and supporting countries in finding ways

to overcome them.E.g., public sector innovation review of Canada,

advice on specific projects (UAE, Latvia, Slovenia etc.)

.LEADERSHIP FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE


Sneak peak to February 2018

INNOVATION IN CITIES: W HOSE PREROGATIVE?

01

I D E N T I T YGovernments are innovating to

conceive of new ways to provide identities to individuals and

businesses through emerging technologies.:

02

S Y S T E M S A P P R O A C H E S

Governments are using innovation to lead a paradigm shift in the way government services are provided

03

I N C LU S I V E N E S SGovernments are rallying behind

the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs), finding new paths

towards gender equality, and easing the transition and

economic circumstances for migrants.


t

PIRET TÕNURIST

INNOVATION SPECIALIST AND LEAD ON SYSTEMS THINKINGOBSERVATORY OF PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION

PUBLIC VALUE FOR CITY INNOVATION

SYSTEMS APPROACHES TO CREATING PUBLIC VALUE ON THE

CITY LEVEL


WHY DO WE NEED CHANGE?SYSTEMS ARE NOT FAILING; THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE AIMS THEY WERE DESIGNED…

IT IS THE AIMS THAT HAVE CHANGED

0 1END OF KNOWN KNOWNS Uncertainty is on the rise and not everything can evidenced (in time)

0 2COMPLEXITY Problems are becoming increasingly complex, while out solutions remain reductionist

0 3

PROXIMATE FAILURE, DISTANT IMPACT

Increasingly todays interventions – and failures – will have long-term effects

0 4MENS ET MANUSThere is a need for reflection in action: fuzzy fronts and open ends

0 5CONTEXTUAL VARIANCEMost problems are contextual and akin to the system they derive from. Toolkit fatigue – not all processes can be described in linear actions

0 6NEW AIMSThe way we live our lives has changed and so have our expectations of government and public services


Tactics for systems change

TO CREATE THE POSSIBILITY TO INITIATE AND CARRY OUT PROJECTS FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

PEOPLECombining a diverse set of

people:“If you know everyone in

the room: you will fail”

PLACECreating the neutral space to deliberate and set back from the everyday system

DWELLINGCreating the time and conditions to think and deliberate on the end

purpose

CONNECTINGConnecting to all

stakeholders to both inform the process and

form advocacy coalitions

FRAMINGFraming the issue based on the outcome/purpose (public value) not existing

system structures

DESIGNINGBased on the analysis

before, designing solutions that may have systemic

effects

EXPERIMENTINGReducing uncertainty by

experimenting on a smaller scale with different solutions and clear action

plans

PROTOTYPINGCreating a prototype for

scale that can be tested by diverse populations

STEWARDINGGuiding and supporting

the process by both creating the resources and

political backing for change

MEANINGFUL MEASUREMENTMeasuring the effects

based on the outcomes wanted to achieve, not

proxies


Transformative change on the city level

� How to frame public value around complex challenges on the city level?

� Technology push at smart cities, but what value and for whom?

� How to have a deliberative process with stakeholders and citizens?

� How to use the information in building a future vision of cities?

� What scale to work on to make challenges actionable?



There is no one answer fits all, but there are some examples we can learn from


Case studies

New Urban Mechanic

Boston

Circular EconomyAmsterdam

City of Things (IoT)Antwerp

Regional Collaboration (Refugee Acceptance)

Gothenburg Region

Seoul50+Seoul

Democracy by LotteryToronto, Vancouver

Hope Care SystemNamyangju

Urban Data CentresThe NL

Regional Innovation Networks

North Rhine Westfalia

Fusion PointGothenburg

C I T I Z E N R E F E R E N C E PA N E L S

MASS LPB:

Reference panel playbook

HOW TO RUN A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS BASED ON BROADER SOCIAL VALUE?

DEFINE THE TASK PLAN YOUR RESPONSE ENSURE INDEPENDENCE & BALANCE

WHO SHOULD BE IN THE ROOM

CREATE A CURRICULUM

INVOLVE THE WIDER PUBLIC

HOST & FACILITATE TIME & MONEY

# 0 1 # 0 2 # 0 3 # 0 4

# 0 5 # 0 6 # 0 7 # 0 8

MASS LPB CREATIVE COMMONS: https://www.masslbp.com/the-reference-panel-playbook/

LEADERSHIP FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE


Transformative change on the city level: main challenges

� Not all cities have the same needs� Issues cities face today do not follow administrative bounds (city vs suburb vs region vs state)� Variety of strategies to reach the same aims

Lack of dedicated analytical capacity and other resources (money, time etc.) around innovation

and smart solutions

� Difficulty in ascertaining the real public value connected to projects (Antwerp)

� Funder and private sector perspective starts to domineer the agenda (Boston, Antwerp, Gothenburg, FP)

� Cities have little time to react and research does not inform processes in time (Gothenburg, FP)

� Engineering over public value (Antwerp, Amsterdam)

Fragmented agendas: silos and agencies dealing with specialized issues

� Discussions around technologies (IoT, circular economy etc.) affecting the whole of government are difficult (e.g., Amsterdam): experimentation vs working on scale

� At the same time, precedents in different areas (procurement, data ownership etc.) start to affect cities ability to define a coherent agenda (Amsterdam, Antwerp)

New deliberation approaches require sharing of power with citizens and stakeholders which is difficult for city

governments

� Both top-down and bottom-up approaches present, but some level of political buy-in is necessary (e.g., Seoul, Namyangju, Gothenburg, Boston), however it become a double edged sword in the long run (e.g., Boston, Gothenburg)

� Lowest common denominator collaboration (Gothenburg) and alternative strategies

� User perspective as the legitimizing factor (Boston, Toronto, Vancouver); however, getting into systemic issues becomes difficult

� Sharing of power is much easier in areas of prior government blind spots or new emerging policy fields (Seoul, Namyangju, NRW); much difficult in more traditional fields (urban planning – Gothenburg; water governance –Amsterdam)



Developing more systemic, purpose-driven strategies of innovation in cities with concrete action plans to institutionalise new practises…


o p s i @ o e c d . o r go e . c d / o p s i @ O P S I g o v

#[email protected]

opsi public value for city innovation-espoo-23.01 · opsi works with close partnership with the...

Documents